OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [xliff] term annotation

Hi David, all,

During the discussion about the Translation Candidate annotation I've been looking at the Term annotation and noticed a change that,
I think, we never discussed.

The new note in the Term Annotation section says:
In this annotation type, the XLIFF Core ref attribute is intended to allow for referencing of
terminology resources that are external to the XLIFF Document.
The Glossary uses its own gls:ref to reference its corresponding spans in source content
the other way round.

I see two issues:

1) When did we decided to limit term references to external URIs?

The term annotation is about terminology, and terminology (as I've been sternly reminded several times by various people) is a lot
more than "localization glossaries" as defined in the Glossary module.

Therefore, it's perfectly valid for a future module or an extension to refer to some terminology data inside the document.

I think I've pointed the Tilde's TAWS example of TBX in 1.2 several times: http://taws.tilde.com/xliff. Why would we suddenly forbid

2) Visibly the glossary module as no more link to the core: We don't use the term annotation to point to a glossary entry; and a
glossary entry doesn't have to use a term annotation as its reference (glossary ref: "points to a span of source text within the
same unit, to which the glossary entry is relevant.", which includes non-term annotations).

So, IMO (and in line with separating core from modules when possible), we should avoid in the core to have references (other than
examples) to modules.

I won't fight for issue #2, but I think #1 is important to correct.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]